Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:57 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Dana Overall)
2. 05:12 AM - Re: (Cy Galley)
3. 05:29 AM - RV-4 weights (Doug Weiler)
4. 05:31 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Alex Peterson)
5. 05:36 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Doug Rozendaal)
6. 06:55 AM - Re: RV-4 weights (Boyd C. Braem)
7. 06:57 AM - Re: RV-4 weights (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
8. 07:18 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Tedd McHenry)
9. 07:32 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Tedd McHenry)
10. 07:35 AM - Re: RV-10 day VFR only?? (Boyd C. Braem)
11. 07:59 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Boyd C. Braem)
12. 08:21 AM - Re: Arms (DAVID REEL)
13. 08:23 AM - Re: RV-10, oh No, an opinion!! (Jim Oke)
14. 08:40 AM - Undeliverable (DAVID REEL)
15. 08:48 AM - More RV-10 Photos - N410RV (Jim Oke)
16. 09:07 AM - Re: Kittyhawk 2003 (rsipp@earthlink.net)
17. 09:10 AM - Re: RV-10, oh No, an opinion!! (RV8ter@aol.com)
18. 09:23 AM - Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton (kempthornes)
19. 09:32 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Tracy Crook)
20. 09:36 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (kempthornes)
21. 09:53 AM - Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton (Boyd C. Braem)
22. 10:04 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Sam Buchanan)
23. 10:06 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Boyd C. Braem)
24. 10:36 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Sam Buchanan)
25. 10:40 AM - Re: how to tee -4 tubing into -6 tubing (HCRV6@aol.com)
26. 10:41 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Elsa & Henry)
27. 10:58 AM - Re: RV-4 weights (Dean Pichon)
28. 10:59 AM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! ()
29. 11:00 AM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Boyd C. Braem)
30. 11:08 AM - Re: RV-4 weights/IFR flying (Boyd C. Braem)
31. 11:17 AM - Garmin 195 For Sale (the colwells)
32. 11:17 AM - Re: Undeliverable (Matt Dralle)
33. 11:28 AM - New/Prospective Builders--Ahoy! (Boyd C. Braem)
34. 11:44 AM - Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton (Boyd C. Braem)
35. 12:04 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Ed Holyoke)
36. 12:13 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Tedd McHenry)
37. 12:20 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Finn Lassen)
38. 12:20 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Tedd McHenry)
39. 01:10 PM - kabong? (Evan and Megan Johnson)
40. 01:21 PM - RV-10 day VFR only?? Van's reply (Brian Denk)
41. 01:21 PM - Re: kabong? (Jerry Springer)
42. 01:50 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (chris m)
43. 01:55 PM - Re: kabong? (John)
44. 02:03 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Steven Eberhart)
45. 02:20 PM - Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton (John Starn)
46. 02:42 PM - Re: kabong? (John Starn)
47. 02:53 PM - Re: kabong? (Charlie & Tupper England)
48. 03:12 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Chris W)
49. 03:49 PM - Re: kabong? (John Starn)
50. 05:01 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Tedd McHenry)
51. 05:32 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Pete Elia)
52. 05:34 PM - Re: [nonspam] RV-10 day VFR only?? Van's reply (Larry Pardue)
53. 05:54 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (John Starn)
54. 06:14 PM - Re: kabong? (Jaye and Scott Jackson)
55. 06:28 PM - Real Long-New Braunfels (Larry Pardue)
56. 06:37 PM - Re: (Jeff Orear)
57. 07:16 PM - Re: kabong? (Scott Vanartsdalen)
58. 07:44 PM - Re: kabong? (Jaye and Scott Jackson)
59. 07:45 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Scott Vanartsdalen)
60. 07:54 PM - Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! (Jim Oke)
61. 07:54 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea); pressure recovery (Charlie & Tupper England)
62. 08:26 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) (Finn Lassen)
63. 09:18 PM - Re: kabong? (Scott Vanartsdalen)
64. 09:47 PM - New RV-6A builder (David Taylor)
65. 10:14 PM - Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea); pressure recovery & flyin notice (John Starn)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
>Hope it doesn't hurt the company and make them have to raise the prices on
>the other kits more than usual.
I'll offer an opinion (oh, geez another one of those smelly things). Being
an owner of a certified four place airplane, I really believe the cruiser
crowd is laying in wait for this 4 seater to come out. Up to this point the
only options available were glass or fabric with either mega bucks involved
or from a company that did not offer anything "go fast". Van's is a trusted
company with a vast history to follow. Sure, there are always going to be
people buying new A36s but in my case, I'm just thinking out loud here, I
could probably pull the 225HP engine and C/S prop out of my older Bonanza
(plus I have another 225HP core and jugs, 0 time yellow tagged crank, cam,
case, rods, acc. case etc. sitting in the hangar), pull the radios, avionics
and such and either part out or selll the airframe to a scrap house and come
out way ahead of the game. I would not be at the mercy of my wishy washy
IA/AP (this is not an indictment against any IA/AP on this list, just my
local one) on a yearly basis. In this case, I'd have a "go fast" and I'd
have a cruiser............best of both worlds.
I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
RV-7 slider/fuselage
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Probably are slowing losing all those nice Snap-On tools this way. <GRIN>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Patterson" <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Patterson <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Guy's!
>
> I just moved my RV-4 from the Garage to the Hayward Airport to complete
the engine and avionics and get this baby in the air. Anyone with a lead on
an IO-320 or 360 / and any 2-1/4 inch instruments would be appreciated.
> Ron Patterson N8ZD (reserved)
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
Fellow Listers:
Question for the RV-4 drivers out there....
I have just completed the W&B of my new RV-4. It is 180 hp, Hartzell prop,
vacuum pump, etc. No paint. EW is 1036. The EWCG is just forward of the
forward limit (67.39). With me in it and full fuel, CG is 69.4 (.8 aft of
the forward limit). The RV-4 I just sold was similarly equipped except it
was painted. It's CG was about .8 inches aft of the new one.
I have flow the RV-4 in all CG ranges and it is really not an issue provided
you are aware of the change in pitch sensitivity at aft CG and also trim
accordingly for takeoff. I could be curious to know if other 180 hp, CS
prop, RV-4s also end up with their EWCGs forward of the forward limit. The
thought occured to be to perhaps bolt some lead in the tail to bring it a
little further aft.
Thanks
Doug Weiler
Hudson, WI
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
I suspect like many other new designs, this one will look better once
finished, faired, etc.. I predict Van's will sell more RV-10s than any
other kit they have ever made.
Regarding it looking similar to other designs, there are fundamental
design reasons why it will look similar to many other newer four places;
why do you think jet airliners all look so similar?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 299 hours
www.rvforum.org
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson
<jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
>
> Does not a properly-designed radiator duct actually add thrust instead of
> drag, as in the P-51? Something about heating and expanding the air...
> Scott in VAncouver
The Mustang has a pitot type cooling intake. Then the air is expanded in
the "doghouse" and passes through the radiator and finally is recompressed
and accelerated by closing the cooling exit door.
It recovers some of the heat in the coolant as thrust that way. It is an
Amazing system.
But some major drawbacks to the P-51 cooling system are:
The coolant pipes run through the cockpit, if they rupture, you have boiled
pilot on the menu.
The Merlin will not run for more than a couple minutes without coolant, even
at low power, so a cooling system failure most likely means you will go
farming....
Chasing coolant leaks is a continuous chore on the Mustang. Heating and
cooling the rubber hoses causes them to be crushed by the hose clamps and
then they seep. If you leave the airplane in an unheated hanger, the hoses
shrink and then you find a puddle under the airplane. I think this partly
because every thing we clamp the hoses on is pretty light gauge aluminum and
it has a higher coeffiecent of expansion than iron and you can't crank down
on the clamps or you will crush the pipes.
Don't get me wrong, the Mustang is a WONDERFUL airplane to fly, but Van
Grunsven captured most of the good aspects of the airplane without out the
bad manners.
I also have a good friend who had a Liquid-cooled Cessna 414 and it went
like a scalded cat! But it was a maintenance nightmare. Long-term, a liquid
cooled aircraft engine would be a wonderful thing, but so far, none of them
have been as trustworthy, or as trouble-free as a Lycosaurus.
Cavalier tried to convert P-51s to corporate chariots and it didn't work,
and their are plenty of reasons why.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
RV-4
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Hey, Doug--
It's not a -4, but the Swift (at least some of them) has a honkin; heap
of lead bolted under the vertical stab. I put the battery back there,
instead, but with the smaller, better batteries, I'm currently
re-thinking that.
Doug Weiler wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
>
>Fellow Listers:
>
>Question for the RV-4 drivers out there....
>
>I have just completed the W&B of my new RV-4. It is 180 hp, Hartzell prop,
>vacuum pump, etc. No paint. EW is 1036. The EWCG is just forward of the
>forward limit (67.39). With me in it and full fuel, CG is 69.4 (.8 aft of
>the forward limit). The RV-4 I just sold was similarly equipped except it
>was painted. It's CG was about .8 inches aft of the new one.
>
>I have flow the RV-4 in all CG ranges and it is really not an issue provided
>you are aware of the change in pitch sensitivity at aft CG and also trim
>accordingly for takeoff. I could be curious to know if other 180 hp, CS
>prop, RV-4s also end up with their EWCGs forward of the forward limit. The
>thought occured to be to perhaps bolt some lead in the tail to bring it a
>little further aft.
>
>Thanks
>
>Doug Weiler
>Hudson, WI
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
Instead of adding lead in the tail, you could install a lighter CS propeller
on the nose.
I believe the MT propeller would save you around 12 pounds on the nose. You
might want to check your W&B for this change.
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A engine MT CS propeller
PS Shameless SPAM from the Southern California MT Propeller representative.
When you've got something really good, you need to tell people about it.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Sat, 17 May 2003, Dana Overall wrote:
> I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
I'm inclinded to agree. I run a web site for an RV builder's group, through
which I have contact with many RV wannabes. For years, one of the most common
comments has been, "Too bad they don't make a four-seater." There are a lot of
potential builders out there who can justify building an RV if it has four
seats, but not if it has only two.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson
> <jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
> >
> > Does not a properly-designed radiator duct actually add thrust instead of
> > drag, as in the P-51? Something about heating and expanding the air...
> > Scott in VAncouver
Scott:
This is common practice in formula-type racing cars. They also vary the size
of the outlet duct for different air temperatures and track speeds, which in
the case of a racing car varies downforce (i.e. negative lift) as well as drag.
Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes in,
expands to a higher pressure in the duct, is heated by the radiator, and then
accelerated out through the exhaust duct to create thrust. In practice,
though, I think the thrust you generate doesn't exceed the drag of having the
radiator in the first place. If you add a bunch of ducted radiators I wouldn't
expect to go faster! But if you can add water cooling without adversely
affecting the profile drag much (think Mosquito) you should be able to have
quite a bit less drag than a dypical air-cooled engine installation.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 day VFR only?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Brian--
Think economics and advertising. The RV-10 prototype is most likely put
together "bare-bones". Not only does that make test flying simpler, but
their initial performance numbers will be "buffed" a little because of
reduced weight, drag, etc.
And, please don't get me started on this "light IFR" cr*p. You either
know how to fly in the soup with ice building up on your wings or you
don't. End of story. Well, not really, 'cause then we have to make
sure to mention partial panel work--EVEN IF YOU ONLY FLY *VFR*. If you
fly enough, one of these days the weather gods are going to snag you and
if you haven't practiced flying in the sh*t, you're gonna die--fairly
simple logic. All you need is your T&B (TC), airspeed, altimeter and a
stop watch--please don't depend on your VSI if your life depends on
it!)-- (your VSI is always chasing the airplane, so it's never really
sure where it is at any exact moment)--now, if we all took some hints
from our glider/soaring friends and put Variometers in......
Humbly submitted, (what was his first name and initial???) Neitermier.
Brian Denk wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>Am I missing something or is the -10 devoid of any landing or wingtip
>lighting? Not exactly how I would configure it, being that it's a touring
>airplane. Still, I think it's beautiful!
>
>On another note, I'm putting together a spreadsheet of estimated expenses
>for a day/night VFR, and "light" IFR RV-10. I'm estimating $35k for a basic
>kit. Can't seem to get below $70k with a used O-540, Hartzell, doityourself
>paint job and minimal interior.
>
>Brian Denk
>RV8 N94BD
>
>
>_
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Tedd--
Obviously, I'm just yanking your chain, but before GV or Ferg say
anything, I want to be on record as noting that I could not find any
references on a Google search of "dypical air-cooled engines"
do not archive
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>
>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson
>>>
>>>
>><jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
>>
>>
>>>Does not a properly-designed radiator duct actually add thrust instead of
>>>drag, as in the P-51? Something about heating and expanding the air...
>>>Scott in VAncouver
>>>
>>>
>
>Scott:
>
>This is common practice in formula-type racing cars. They also vary the size
>of the outlet duct for different air temperatures and track speeds, which in
>the case of a racing car varies downforce (i.e. negative lift) as well as drag.
>
>Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes in,
>expands to a higher pressure in the duct, is heated by the radiator, and then
>accelerated out through the exhaust duct to create thrust. In practice,
>though, I think the thrust you generate doesn't exceed the drag of having the
>radiator in the first place. If you add a bunch of ducted radiators I wouldn't
>expect to go faster! But if you can add water cooling without adversely
>affecting the profile drag much (think Mosquito) you should be able to have
>quite a bit less drag than a dypical air-cooled engine installation.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>-6 wings
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Drawing 19 shows the distance of various portions of the fuselage from the firewall.
Combine that info with the fact that the datum, or zero point for moment
calculations is 70" in front of the wing leading edge on the 8 and you can figure
the datum for any installation location once you locate the leading edge
on the drawing. As the drawing gives the location of the main spar, a measurement
on my AC puts the leading edge 16 1/4" forward of the front of the main
spar box which is at station 33 13/16. So, I convert station to datum by adding
70 + 16 1/4" - 33 13/16" or 52 7/16" to the station.
Dave Reel - RV8A
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh No, an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
I think we can be reasonably certain that the proprietor of Van's aircraft
has done a most careful market assessment for the RV-10 project and is
confident the demand is there for the right 4-seat design.
Everyone has an opinion so IMHO, the RV-10 is directed at the Cessna/Piper
four seater replacement/upgrade market and not what might be called the
"traditional RV sport aviator" market which is in truth rather limited. I
have no real stats at hand but would say the vast majority of GA airplanes
in North America are utility four-seaters of the 172/Cherokee 140 class.
These airplanes are getting old and cost lots to maintain and operate with
new 172s up in the quarter million $$ range. When 172/Cherokee owners find
out that they can acquire an RV-10 for perhaps 1/4 the cost of a new 172, go
faster and farther with the same payload on any given day and for a fraction
of the cost of ownership, that will create a really big market for the
RV-10. Homebuilding is obviously not for everyone, but if Van's can persuade
2% of 172/Cherokee owners that building an RV-10 will provide them with
better/cheaper transportation, that would be a very significant piece of
business.
The RV-10 roll out is probably targeted for Oshkosh in a few months. If
Flying magazine does a positive pilot report and calls it a better, more
useful airplane than (for instance) a 172 then watch out for demand to go
through the roof. Hopefully Van's has a suitable contingency plan in place
for this (and I would be surprised if they did not). The target RV-10
market is probably looking more towards acquiring a completed airplane than
personally handcrafting the "ideal RV" so look for more quickbuild options
such as prewired instrument panels and such to made available.
Just my opinion, of course.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A, C-GKGZ, wait at the hangar getting tedious.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-10, oh no an opinion!!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> I suspect like many other new designs, this one will look better once
> finished, faired, etc.. I predict Van's will sell more RV-10s than any
> other kit they have ever made.
>
> Regarding it looking similar to other designs, there are fundamental
> design reasons why it will look similar to many other newer four places;
> why do you think jet airliners all look so similar?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 299 hours
>
> www.rvforum.org
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Sorry about the multiple Arms reply postings. I keep getting the message returned
marked undeliverable. Here's the details:
Reporting-MTA: DNS; web-unwired.net
Received-From-MTA: DNS; [66.92.24.4]
Final-Recipient: RFC822; FtpBandit@web-unwired.net
Action: failed
Remote-MTA: DNS; web-unwired.net
Diagnostic-Code: 550 s...user over quota
Then when I read the next digest, I saw that the message had indeed been posted
to the list. Maybe not related, but the equals sign in the equation at the end
was turned into a space each time.
Do Not Archive
Dave Reel - RV8A
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | More RV-10 Photos - N410RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
After expressing my RV-10 opinion, I went over to Van's site to have another look
at the RV-10 info and, guess what, there are more RV-10 photos posted as of
05/16/03. All the major components are in place with doors and gear fairings
still to go. Some paint detailing has been applied, so the paint scheme is looking
a lot better now and could even be said to be reasonably attractive! The
prototype's reg looks to be N410RV.
First flight some day soon?
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
(Better get the -6A flying first!)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kittyhawk 2003 |
--> RV-List message posted by: rsipp@earthlink.net
Dick Sipp RV4 N250DS is planning on attending.
Hi,
Will anyone else have their RV at Dare County Airport during the Kittyhawk
Centential events?
-Glenn Gordon
RV-6, N442E
80 hours
href="http://www.matronics.com/subscription">http://www.matronics.com/subscription
href="http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm">http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
href="http://www.matronics.com/search">http://www.matronics.com/search
href="http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list">http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list
href="http://www.matronics.com/archives">http://www.matronics.com/archives
href="http://www.matronics.com/photoshare">http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
href="http://www.matronics.com/rv-list">http://www.matronics.com/rv-list
href="http://www.matronics.com/emaillists">http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh No, an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV8ter@aol.com
I hope the optimism is justified. 2 or 3 sun-n-funs ago I asked Van himself
about the then "sort of secret" 4 seat plane idea. He was doing his market
research then a little bit I think 'cause he turned the tables on us some and
asked me and my buddy what we thought. I told him I'd want it to be 2 seat
acro capable and he shot that down with an example of another similar plane
that had trouble that was already out there which I can't think of at the
moment. I told him that if I wanted a 4 seater that wasn't acro, I'd just as
soon rent a high performance plane if I just had to get somewhere REALLY
fast. More efficient use of my time than building another plane when I have a
lot of other hobbies I like to spend $ and time on. He told us he wasn't
sure the market was really there for a non-certified, slower than glass 4
seat touring mission plane and they had other projects that they had to
finish up at the time. I think the sailplane and/or the RV-9 were those
projects.
He said he was very worried people would try to fly acro in them anyway and
get 4 people killed. He also said he was worried more people would try to
fly IFR in them and as a result get more RVs in fatal accident reports. I
believe the RV-8 demo fatal accident had to be in the forefront of his mind
at the time.
At that time I thought he was being too conservative and that the idea would
really take off. However, the economy is quite different than it was 2 or 3
aprils ago and that has the industry folks spooked which is why you saw so
much press coverage about sun-n-fun attendance and saw those kids doing the
economic surveys down there everyday this year.
He probably now thinks he can get some of the currrent RV'rs who may no
longer need the acro mission and have extra $ to jump in and prime the
pipeline and he can attract some of the glassy customers if he can approach
their performance at a reasonably lower cost after some initial good customer
feedback.
A sometimes overlooked point is that the pipers/cessnas are popular in part
because they are certified and ideal for training and rental missions. To
many folks with money for larger planes, that's a plus.
We haven't seen the price for the kit yet. It could be more expensive than
some are hoping. I hope not but they are advertising price yet, are they?
Oh well, the karma wheel spins around and around. I just know that when I
look at it, if I was going to buy something like that, I'd rather by a glassy
plane and that was by far and away the sentiment of most of the folks at work
I showed the pictures to too.
It would be nice if some folks did start buying 540s instead of 360s, that's
for sure!
In a message dated 5/17/2003 11:24:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, wjoke@shaw.ca
writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
>
> I think we can be reasonably certain that the proprietor of Van's aircraft
> has done a most careful market assessment for the RV-10 project and is
> confident the demand is there for the right 4-seat design.
>
> Everyone has an opinion so IMHO, the RV-10 is directed at the Cessna/Piper
> four seater replacement/upgrade market and not what might be called the
> "traditional RV sport aviator" market which is in truth rather limited. I
> have no real stats at hand but would say the vast majority of GA airplanes
> in North America are utility four-seaters of the 172/Cherokee 140 class.
> These airplanes are getting old and cost lots to maintain and operate with
> new 172s up in the quarter million $$ range. When 172/Cherokee owners find
> out that they can acquire an RV-10 for perhaps 1/4 the cost of a new 172,
> go
> faster and farther with the same payload on any given day and for a
> fraction
> of the cost of ownership, that will create a really big market for the
> RV-10. Homebuilding is obviously not for everyone, but if Van's can
> persuade
> 2% of 172/Cherokee owners that building an RV-10 will provide them with
> better/cheaper transportation, that would be a very significant piece of
> business.
>
> The RV-10 roll out is probably targeted for Oshkosh in a few months. If
> Flying magazine does a positive pilot report and calls it a better, more
> useful airplane than (for instance) a 172 then watch out for demand to go
> through the roof. Hopefully Van's has a suitable contingency plan in place
> for this (and I would be surprised if they did not). The target RV-10
> market is probably looking more towards acquiring a completed airplane than
> personally handcrafting the "ideal RV" so look for more quickbuild options
> such as prewired instrument panels and such to made available.
>
> Just my opinion, of course.
>
> Jim Oke
> Winnipeg, MB
> RV-6A, C-GKGZ, wait at the hangar getting tedious.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-10, oh no an opinion!!
>
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> >
> >I suspect like many other new designs, this one will look better once
> >finished, faired, etc.. I predict Van's will sell more RV-10s than any
> >other kit they have ever made.
> >
> >Regarding it looking similar to other designs, there are fundamental
> >design reasons why it will look similar to many other newer four places;
> >why do you think jet airliners all look so similar?
> >
> >Alex Peterson
> >Maple Grove, MN
> >RV6-A N66AP 299 hours
> >
> >www.rvforum.org
> >
> >
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 08:28 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <t.gummo@verizon.net>
>
>P.S. Anybody is welcome to stop by,
>swap tall tales (some maybe true),
>Hangar fly,
>and just about anything else which deals with aviation.
I guess there is at least one of you at every airport! I visited an old
sailor the other day, he taught me all about landing on an aircraft
carrier. He has a six, so I asked him if he thought he could land it on a
carrier without a tailhook. "Easy", he said.
Someday, Tom, I'll find out which airport is yours. Hope you are there.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Not wacky at all, at least in principle. I won't bore you with the details
but the bottom line is that in order to get the required number of BTUs to
the skin, the coolant distribution system is prohibitively heavy. It could
be succesful *IF* the wing structure were designed from the start with this
in mind. A retrofit is, in all likelyhood, impractical.
Now for the possible. I did an experiment to determine if the return fuel
from my EFI system could be used to cool my oil. (the rotary engine rejects
33% of cooling BTUs into the oil). The wet wing tanks of the RV would then
disipate the heat picked up by the fuel.
The experiment was a "failure" because the return fuel rate was too low (~15
GPH) and it only reduced oil temp by 2 deg. F. *But* , temp rise in the
single wing tank used was below measurement threshold (.2 deg F) I plan to
repeat the test using a dedicated high volume pump and utilizing both tanks
on my RV-8.
Cooling drag is said to represent 30% of total aircraft drag on a reasonably
clean aircraft. If 1/3 of this can be eliminated it would be a success.
Airframe designers would sell their mothers for a 10% drag reduction.
Tracy Crook
Wacky experimenter
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>
> I know that there are very few water-cooled aircraft, but does
anyone know
> if any (in history, not just RVs) have been successfully cooled using the
> wings as heat exchangers?
>
> I did a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, and it appears to
be
> theoretically possible to transfer the waste heat of a 200 HP engine to
the
> air using just the wing surface of an RV. There seems to be more than
> enough surface area to do it. The idea is to transfer the heat to the
front
> and rear spars with coolant tubes and then out to the skins via
conduction.
> Perhaps there might be one or two more coolant tubes inside the skins, if
> need be.
>
> I was interested to know if anyone had attempted this in the past.
>
> It could significantly reduce the cooling drag, if it worked.
Also, the
> thermal mass of the wings and structure would really help during
climb-out.
> The tubes and coolant could weigh close to the same as a conventional
> radiator, perhaps less if you include the radiator mounts and plenum.
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 05:36 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>
> I know that there are very few water-cooled aircraft,
Why use water cooling? The idea is to get the heat out of the engine and
into the air. Why interpose water as there is still the problem of getting
the heat into the air.
Air cooling has a number of advantages. Water cooling has a number of
disadvantages.
If you begin with a water cooled engine then you are stuck with having to
interpose water but not otherwise.
What we really need is a better air cooled engine. One that doesn't
vibrate, doesn't suffer shock cooling, regulates its own temperature, isn't
so expensive (has competition) and consumes less fuel.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Hal--
It's Apple Valley (APV)--bring steaks for the grill--Kabong likes to eat
too.
kempthornes wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
>
>At 08:28 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <t.gummo@verizon.net>
>>
>>P.S. Anybody is welcome to stop by,
>>swap tall tales (some maybe true),
>>Hangar fly,
>>and just about anything else which deals with aviation.
>>
>>
>
>I guess there is at least one of you at every airport! I visited an old
>sailor the other day, he taught me all about landing on an aircraft
>carrier. He has a six, so I asked him if he thought he could land it on a
>carrier without a tailhook. "Easy", he said.
>
>Someday, Tom, I'll find out which airport is yours. Hope you are there.
>
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK flying!
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Sat, 17 May 2003, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
>
> I'm inclinded to agree. I run a web site for an RV builder's group, through
> which I have contact with many RV wannabes. For years, one of the most common
> comments has been, "Too bad they don't make a four-seater." There are a lot
of
> potential builders out there who can justify building an RV if it has four
> seats, but not if it has only two.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
Guess it's time for a contrary opinion. ;-)
As long as we are speculating about something that none of us can
actually foresee, I would like to offer the opinion that the RV-10 will
be sold in comparatively small quantities. Two S-N-Fs ago I spoke at
length with Ken Green about the four-place plane they were considering.
The thrust of the conversation was about the market niche that may or
may not exist for the RV-10. My contention was that it would be sold
primarily to individuals that do not represent the current builders of
the two-place designs. The current RVs are wildly popular because they
hit a financial "sweet spot" that many, many builders can accommodate.
While there are builders of current models that have the financial
resources to spend whatever money they wish on a project, I suggest that
most RVs have been built by folks that are at their financial limit (or
beyond!) for a hobby project. The range of $40K-$60K for a project is
attainable for a large number of builders who can not spend $100K+ for a
more sophisticated design.
But.........$40K-$60K will not come close to building an RV-10. And this
was the point of my discussion with Ken. This means the RV-10 will fall
into a vastly different market niche than the current models. Ken
readily agreed with my assessment and stated that there was concern
within management that they might be designing a plane that might be
difficult to sell in quantities that would be profitable. But, he said
that the company is now financially secure enough that they can "roll
the dice" and see what the market can bear. If the RV-10 is as
successful as some of the listers have predicted, then the competition
will have another 800 lb gorilla to deal with! If not, then it was Ken's
opinion that Vans could carry the expense of the four-place experiment
without unduly impacting the bottom line.
The reasons I predict the RV-10 will be built in relatively small
quantities are thus:
1) The completed cost will be far above what most current RV builders
are experiencing, because....
2) Most RV-10 builders will not be able to justify such a plane with
VFR-only capabilities. This means that serious panels are going to be
installed, which means that.....
3) The engine/prop expenses will be considerably higher since who will
want to put a half-worn-out motor in a nice four-place plane with a nice
panel, which means.....
4) Insurance cost will be considerably higher since the hull value will
escalate, and four souls are now at risk.
5) The biggest chunk of potential buyers will be those who have
absolutely no interest in building a plane. Will they overcome their
aversion to building in sufficient quantities to abandon their Mooneys,
Cherokees, and Cessnas, and create a substantial fleet of RV-10s?
All this means that Vans is striking out into a market far, far
different than the one they have dominated for fifteen years. There is
no doubt the RV-10 will be a nice kit, but $100,000 dollars will buy
some decent certificated four place planes. All the points I have raised
have been thoroughly examined by the management of Vans, and due to the
maturity of the company, they are willing to have a go to see what
happens.
But ask the guys at Vans if they predict a runaway best seller, and I
suspect you will receive a subdued answer at this point in time. I wish
the very best for the RV-10 endeavor and expect it to be well received
by the builders who decide this project fits their needs and budgets.
Sam Buchanan
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Air cooling has a very major disadvantage, in that its engine temp
control temp is not constant. Water cooling can deliver a constant temp
bath for the engine under a certain set of conditions--which improves
the recently discussed BSFC, as if we didn't have airplanes to build,
which I don't because my airplane was built in 1998--so, some of us
gotta talk about flying, or making crappy jokes or just sorta shootin' bull.
kempthornes wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
>
>At 05:36 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>>
>> I know that there are very few water-cooled aircraft,
>>
>>
>
>Why use water cooling? The idea is to get the heat out of the engine and
>into the air. Why interpose water as there is still the problem of getting
>the heat into the air.
>
>Air cooling has a number of advantages. Water cooling has a number of
>disadvantages.
>
>If you begin with a water cooled engine then you are stuck with having to
>interpose water but not otherwise.
>
>What we really need is a better air cooled engine. One that doesn't
>vibrate, doesn't suffer shock cooling, regulates its own temperature, isn't
>so expensive (has competition) and consumes less fuel.
>
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK flying!
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
This is a corrected version of my earlier post to reflect that the
person with whom I talked was indeed Tom Green, NOT Ken Green........
(brain fade....again....).
Sam Buchanan
==========================
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Sat, 17 May 2003, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
>
> I'm inclinded to agree. I run a web site for an RV builder's group, through
> which I have contact with many RV wannabes. For years, one of the most common
> comments has been, "Too bad they don't make a four-seater." There are a lot
of
> potential builders out there who can justify building an RV if it has four
> seats, but not if it has only two.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
Guess it's time for a contrary opinion. ;-)
As long as we are speculating about something that none of us can
actually foresee, I would like to offer the opinion that the RV-10 will
be sold in comparatively small quantities. Two S-N-Fs ago I spoke at
length with Tom Green about the four-place plane they were considering.
The thrust of the conversation was about the market niche that may or
may not exist for the RV-10. My contention was that it would be sold
primarily to individuals that do not represent the current builders of
the two-place designs. The current RVs are wildly popular because they
hit a financial "sweet spot" that many, many builders can accommodate.
While there are builders of current models that have the financial
resources to spend whatever money they wish on a project, I suggest that
most RVs have been built by folks that are at their financial limit (or
beyond!) for a hobby project. The range of $40K-$60K for a project is
attainable for a large number of builders who can not spend $100K+ for a
more sophisticated design.
But.........$40K-$60K will not come close to building an RV-10. And this
was the point of my discussion with Tom. This means the RV-10 will fall
into a vastly different market niche than the current models. Tom
readily agreed with my assessment and stated that there was concern
within management that they might be designing a plane that might be
difficult to sell in quantities that would be profitable. But, he said
that the company is now financially secure enough that they can "roll
the dice" and see what the market can bear. If the RV-10 is as
successful as some of the listers have predicted, then the competition
will have another 800 lb gorilla to deal with! If not, then it was Tom's
opinion that Vans could carry the expense of the four-place experiment
without unduly impacting the bottom line.
The reasons I predict the RV-10 will be built in relatively small
quantities are thus:
1) The completed cost will be far above what most current RV builders
are experiencing, because....
2) Most RV-10 builders will not be able to justify such a plane with
VFR-only capabilities. This means that serious panels are going to be
installed, which means that.....
3) The engine/prop expenses will be considerably higher since who will
want to put a half-worn-out motor in a nice four-place plane with a nice
panel, which means.....
4) Insurance cost will be considerably higher since the hull value will
escalate, and four souls are now at risk.
5) The biggest chunk of potential buyers will be those who have
absolutely no interest in building a plane. Will they overcome their
aversion to building in sufficient quantities to abandon their Mooneys,
Cherokees, and Cessnas, and create a substantial fleet of RV-10s?
All this means that Vans is striking out into a market far, far
different than the one they have dominated for fifteen years. There is
no doubt the RV-10 will be a nice kit, but $100,000 dollars will buy
some decent certificated four place planes. All the points I have raised
have been thoroughly examined by the management of Vans, and due to the
maturity of the company, they are willing to have a go to see what
happens.
But ask the guys at Vans if they predict a runaway best seller, and I
suspect you will receive a subdued answer at this point in time. I wish
the very best for the RV-10 endeavor and expect it to be well received
by the builders who decide this project fits their needs and budgets.
Sam Buchanan
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: how to tee -4 tubing into -6 tubing |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 5/16/03 12:25:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan@rvproject.com writes:
<< What's the best way to tee -4 (1/4") tubing into -6 (3/8") tubing?
>>
Dan: I had a similar problem when I wanted to tee off my fuel line at the
firewall with a 1/4" line to my primer valve. I got some 1 x 1 1/4 Al bar
stock from Spruce, a 1/8 NPT and a 1/4 NPT tap from the local hardware store
and went to work. Made a transition block about 1 x 1 1/8 x 1 that bolts to
the firewall with four #8 screws. Tapped front and back for the 3/8" fuel
line and on one side for 1/4" primer line. Took about three hours and looks
like it will work. There may be easier ways to do this but I couldn't come
up with one at the time. Hope this helps.
BTW, you've got a lot of nerve asking an RV building question on the RV list
:-).
Do not archive
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, firewall forward
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
Sam,
Re your contrary opinion post, Ken Green?? Is that a new guy in field or do
you mean Ken Scott or Tom Green?
Cheers!! -----Henry Hore
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon@msn.com>
I have a similarly equipped -4. Mine weighed 1052 with primer, but not topcoat.
I calculated that the pilot has to weigh at least 75 pounds to move empty weight
CG sufficient aft to be within the forward limit. I like having the forward
CG - hard to get out of the limits. The plane is painted and has about 130
hours on it. It seems great. What would you gain by adding lead to the tail?
(Other than making the CG "more" within range)
Dean Pichon
Morgantown, WV
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Weiler
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 weights
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
Fellow Listers:
Question for the RV-4 drivers out there....
I have just completed the W&B of my new RV-4. It is 180 hp, Hartzell prop,
vacuum pump, etc. No paint. EW is 1036. The EWCG is just forward of the
forward limit (67.39). With me in it and full fuel, CG is 69.4 (.8 aft of
the forward limit). The RV-4 I just sold was similarly equipped except it
was painted. It's CG was about .8 inches aft of the new one.
I have flow the RV-4 in all CG ranges and it is really not an issue provided
you are aware of the change in pitch sensitivity at aft CG and also trim
accordingly for takeoff. I could be curious to know if other 180 hp, CS
prop, RV-4s also end up with their EWCGs forward of the forward limit. The
thought occured to be to perhaps bolt some lead in the tail to bring it a
little further aft.
Thanks
Doug Weiler
Hudson, WI
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: <ktlkrn@cox.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
> 1) The completed cost will be far above what most current RV builders
> are experiencing, because....
Sam brings up some very valid points however I'd like to offer this point of
view. I believe the people who are interested in the 10 know about the 10
and are willing to take on the process. I don't think there are that many
out there that wake up one day and say, "I think I'll build a plane and I
think it will be an RV10." I think this occurred with the others in the
series but the 10 is definitely a niche market.
Yes it will cost more. It is going to include the seats for liability and
safety concerns which mean more. It is just plain bigger too. I would say
though that because it can be "paid for" in phases it will be a very
desirable airframe. That is why I'm building an Aerocomp 7SL cause I can
have Cherokee 6 carrying capability at less than 125K, it will be new and I
will have built it. I'd have to say I think it will be popular but not to
the point of long waits and stop everything else numbers.
Now I'm hoping that a bunch of 7 builders will abandon their projects in
favor of the 10 and I can pick up a pocket rocket to go along with my
hauler!!!!
Also keep in mind that in the case of the 10 we are seeing PROTOTYPE is both
an noun and a verb.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
You may think I'm nuts, but that's why I advocate a plenum instead of
baffles and to "polish" the inside of your cowl--esp. the bottom--and
make a "lip" for the air to roll over when it changes direction leaving
the back of the cowl. Cooling drag is a big deal for GA airplanes.
Tracy Crook wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>
>Not wacky at all, at least in principle. <snip>
>
>Cooling drag is said to represent 30% of total aircraft drag on a reasonably
>clean aircraft. If 1/3 of this can be eliminated it would be a success.
>Airframe designers would sell their mothers for a 10% drag reduction.
>
>Tracy Crook
>Wacky experimenter
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>>
>> I know that there are very few water-cooled aircraft, but does anyone
know if any (in history, not just RVs) have been successfully cooled using the
wings as heat exchangers?
>>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 weights/IFR flying |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
Dean brings up a good point.
Planes that have forward cg are good IFR platforms because they sort of
fly you around--planes that have a rear cg need you to fly them around.
Dean Pichon wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" <DeanPichon@msn.com>
>
>I have a similarly equipped -4. Mine weighed 1052 with primer, but not topcoat.
I calculated that the pilot has to weigh at least 75 pounds to move empty
weight CG sufficient aft to be within the forward limit. I like having the forward
CG - hard to get out of the limits. The plane is painted and has about
130 hours on it. It seems great. What would you gain by adding lead to the tail?
(Other than making the CG "more" within range)
>
>
>Dean Pichon
>Morgantown, WV
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Doug Weiler
>To: RV List
>Subject: RV-List: RV-4 weights
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
>
>
>Fellow Listers:
>
>Question for the RV-4 drivers out there....
>
>I have just completed the W&B of my new RV-4. It is 180 hp, Hartzell prop,
>vacuum pump, etc. No paint. EW is 1036. The EWCG is just forward of the
>forward limit (67.39). With me in it and full fuel, CG is 69.4 (.8 aft of
>the forward limit). The RV-4 I just sold was similarly equipped except it
>was painted. It's CG was about .8 inches aft of the new one.
>
>I have flow the RV-4 in all CG ranges and it is really not an issue provided
>you are aware of the change in pitch sensitivity at aft CG and also trim
>accordingly for takeoff. I could be curious to know if other 180 hp, CS
>prop, RV-4s also end up with their EWCGs forward of the forward limit. The
>thought occured to be to perhaps bolt some lead in the tail to bring it a
>little further aft.
>
>Thanks
>
>Doug Weiler
>Hudson, WI
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 195 For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "the colwells" <pvfpilots@hotmail.com>
Immaculate Garmin 195 with Optional Accessories $498. E-mail pvfpilots@hotmail.com
for details.
Steve Colwell RV6 N144AZ Placerville, CA (530) 621-3408
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Undeliverable |
--> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
I have removed "ftpbandit@web-unwired.net" from the lists. Seems their
email address is not sending the "over quota" message back to the proper
address. Normally these go back to a null account at matronics, rather
than the whole list!
Matt Dralle
At 08:40 AM 5/17/2003 Saturday, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>Sorry about the multiple Arms reply postings. I keep getting the message
>returned marked undeliverable. Here's the details:
>
>Reporting-MTA: DNS; web-unwired.net
>Received-From-MTA: DNS; [66.92.24.4]
>
>Final-Recipient: RFC822; ftpbandit@web-unwired.net
>Action: failed
>Remote-MTA: DNS; web-unwired.net
>Diagnostic-Code: 550 s...user over quota
>
>Then when I read the next digest, I saw that the message had indeed been
>posted to the list. Maybe not related, but the equals sign in the
>equation at the end was turned into a space each time.
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
There's three sides to every story, babe. There's your's;
there's mine; and there's the cold, hard truth...
Don Henley
Long Way Home, 1982
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New/Prospective Builders--Ahoy! |
Netscape/7.0
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
My airplanes' (RV) construction was started in 1996. The other week I
went over to see a friend of mine who has a brand new -9A kit (who had
previously built a -6A of the slow build, type). I just sat there,
slack jawed and drooling as this idiot just put all this stuff together,
in like, no time flat, without jigs--I think he had to use a drill, once
in a while--and all the time he was smilin' and hummin' to hisself!!!
What is the world coming to? I mean, pick up that Tony Bengalis (sic?)
book about building the RV-6 "way back then then" and see all the danger
and horror!
Man, are these new kits slick--and I'm just not blowing air up your
skirts--they are really good. I mean, your kid brother, that can't even
play the guitar could build one of these.
Boyd.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
But, the SHEEP, they were my friends! Sort of like a Muppet without the
strings.
Tom Gummo wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <t.gummo@verizon.net>
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>>>Man it must have been scary back in the days when you were a fighter
>>>pilot and sheep were afraid :)
>>>
>>>
>
>Kevin,
>I still am a Fighter Pilot. :-)
>I just don't fly a military fighter anymore. :-(
>I am having a ton of fun with the Rocket. :-)
>Looking forward to your next visit.
>
>Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
>
>P.S. Anybody is welcome to stop by,
>swap tall tales (some maybe true),
>Hangar fly,
>and just about anything else which deals with aviation.
>
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Many thought that the 9a would be a dud with no market and look at how
well it's doing.
And you are probably correct that an expensive airplane will appeal to
fewer people.
Ed Holyoke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:36 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-10, oh no an opinion!!
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>
> This is a corrected version of my earlier post to reflect that the
> person with whom I talked was indeed Tom Green, NOT Ken Green........
> (brain fade....again....).
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
> ==========================
> Tedd McHenry wrote:
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> >
> > On Sat, 17 May 2003, Dana Overall wrote:
> >
> > > I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
> >
> > I'm inclinded to agree. I run a web site for an RV builder's group,
> through
> > which I have contact with many RV wannabes. For years, one of the
most
> common
> > comments has been, "Too bad they don't make a four-seater." There
are a
> lot of
> > potential builders out there who can justify building an RV if it
has
> four
> > seats, but not if it has only two.
> >
> > Tedd McHenry
> > Surrey, BC
> > -6 wings
>
>
> Guess it's time for a contrary opinion. ;-)
>
> As long as we are speculating about something that none of us can
> actually foresee, I would like to offer the opinion that the RV-10
will
> be sold in comparatively small quantities. Two S-N-Fs ago I spoke at
> length with Tom Green about the four-place plane they were
considering.
> The thrust of the conversation was about the market niche that may or
> may not exist for the RV-10. My contention was that it would be sold
> primarily to individuals that do not represent the current builders of
> the two-place designs. The current RVs are wildly popular because they
> hit a financial "sweet spot" that many, many builders can accommodate.
> While there are builders of current models that have the financial
> resources to spend whatever money they wish on a project, I suggest
that
> most RVs have been built by folks that are at their financial limit
(or
> beyond!) for a hobby project. The range of $40K-$60K for a project is
> attainable for a large number of builders who can not spend $100K+ for
a
> more sophisticated design.
>
> But.........$40K-$60K will not come close to building an RV-10. And
this
> was the point of my discussion with Tom. This means the RV-10 will
fall
> into a vastly different market niche than the current models. Tom
> readily agreed with my assessment and stated that there was concern
> within management that they might be designing a plane that might be
> difficult to sell in quantities that would be profitable. But, he said
> that the company is now financially secure enough that they can "roll
> the dice" and see what the market can bear. If the RV-10 is as
> successful as some of the listers have predicted, then the competition
> will have another 800 lb gorilla to deal with! If not, then it was
Tom's
> opinion that Vans could carry the expense of the four-place experiment
> without unduly impacting the bottom line.
>
> The reasons I predict the RV-10 will be built in relatively small
> quantities are thus:
>
> 1) The completed cost will be far above what most current RV builders
> are experiencing, because....
>
> 2) Most RV-10 builders will not be able to justify such a plane with
> VFR-only capabilities. This means that serious panels are going to be
> installed, which means that.....
>
> 3) The engine/prop expenses will be considerably higher since who will
> want to put a half-worn-out motor in a nice four-place plane with a
nice
> panel, which means.....
>
> 4) Insurance cost will be considerably higher since the hull value
will
> escalate, and four souls are now at risk.
>
> 5) The biggest chunk of potential buyers will be those who have
> absolutely no interest in building a plane. Will they overcome their
> aversion to building in sufficient quantities to abandon their
Mooneys,
> Cherokees, and Cessnas, and create a substantial fleet of RV-10s?
>
> All this means that Vans is striking out into a market far, far
> different than the one they have dominated for fifteen years. There is
> no doubt the RV-10 will be a nice kit, but $100,000 dollars will buy
> some decent certificated four place planes. All the points I have
raised
> have been thoroughly examined by the management of Vans, and due to
the
> maturity of the company, they are willing to have a go to see what
> happens.
>
> But ask the guys at Vans if they predict a runaway best seller, and I
> suspect you will receive a subdued answer at this point in time. I
wish
> the very best for the RV-10 endeavor and expect it to be well received
> by the builders who decide this project fits their needs and budgets.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Sat, 17 May 2003, kempthornes wrote:
> Why use water cooling? The idea is to get the heat out of the engine and
> into the air. Why interpose water as there is still the problem of getting
> the heat into the air.
Hal:
As I'm sure you're aware, there are many cases where heat is transferred by a
two (or more) stage process. These things don't happen because people are too
dumb to know better, they happen because there are distinct engineering
advantages.
In the case of liquid cooled engines, the advantages are many. Someone already
mentioned the more consistent cylinder temperature you get with liquid cooling.
That alone leads to quite a few advantages.
Less, and less troublesome, hot spots in the combustion chamber mean that the
engine is more resistant to pre-ignition. That means you can use a higher
compression ratio. Notice how much higher the compression ratios are on liquid
cooled engines that don't have to meet emission regulations. Auto racing
engines run anywhere from 9:1 to 12:1 on avgas. A higher compression ratio
leads directly to lower specific fuel consumption.
Reduced hot spots also lead to lower nitrous oxide emissions. That's not a
problem for airplane engines yet, but I think we can count the days until it
is. Air cooled auto engines died when emission regulations got stricter. The
few that remained got liquid-cooled cylinder heads.
Water cooled engines are structurally stiffer, which not only makes them
mechanically quieter but also allows higher RPMs, enabling you to recoup some
or all of the lost power-to-weight ratio. That's why nearly all new motorcycle
engines are liquid cooled. Notice how even with liquid cooling and a gear
reduction drive the Eggenfellner Subaru is still a close match for a Lycoming
in power-to-weight ratio.
Liquid cooling also provides better cooling (and hence better lubrication) for
the valve stems. Stuck valves, a persistent problem on Lycomings, is virtually
uknown in liquid cooled engines.
Yet another benefit of liquid cooling is that the more consistent temperatures
allow tighter-fitting pistons and rings, which leads to longer engine life.
Check the room-temperature clearance limits for a Lycoming piston as compared
to, say, the Subaru. You're going to get a lot more life out of the piston
rings in a liquid cooled engine (if other engine operating conditions are
similar).
Once you move away from direct drive (i.e. RPM limited by prop speed), liquid
cooling makes more sense than air cooling, even in an airplane--especially the
cylinder heads.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finnlassen@netzero.net>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>...
>Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes in,
>expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
>
Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
k = P* V / T
Finn
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
I think Sam raises a good point about the cost. I was implicitly assuming that
the sales number we were talking about was relative to the cost. Obviously, if
it were cheaper they'd sell more.
But I want to reiterate the point that there are a LOT of potential builders
out there who want four seats. Whether they can afford the RV-10 or not I
can't say.
I also agree with Sam that RV-10 builders will mostly be people who wouldn't
build a two-seat RV (or perhaps some will be "repeat offenders"). That's a
point in favour of the -10 from Van's perspective, since it means they won't be
cannibalizing sales of other models.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek code :)???
Just curious...Evan
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-10 day VFR only?? Van's reply |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
Listers,
With Scott McDaniels' permission, here are his answers to our recent
questions on the RV-10.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
>From: smcdaniels@juno.com
>To: akroguy@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: RV-10 day VFR only??
>Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 09:52:30 -0700
>
>Hey Brian,
> How are you and your family doing.
>I am not subscribed on the RV list but I still cruise the archives a
>couple times a month or so to see what the hot topics are. I saw the
>discussion on the RV-10 and since I have a minute I thought I would
>answer some of the questions that have come up. Please feel free to post
>them for me since I can not.
>
><What is the purpose of the little door in the roof of the RV-10? I
>noticed in the pictures that it is in a position that should be a low
>pressure area in flight.
>
>
>The little door is for rear seat fresh air ventilation. It will/could
>possibly be spilled into a small plenum in the cabin roof such as what is
>in the later model Cherokee's.
>It is actually in a high pressure area because it is at a point where the
>fuselage has an inside radius as the cabin top transitions into the aft
>turtle deck. Generally anytime you are forcing air to change direction
>such as the inside radius of a fairing or in this case the fuselage top,
>you will have high pressure on that surface. That is why air comes "in"
>gaps around the aft end of RV canopys. Anytime you are allowing/hoping
>that the air flow will follow a surface that has an outside radius (such
>as over the top of a wing) there will be lower air pressure.
>
><Am I missing something or is the -10 devoid of any landing or wing tip
>lighting? Not exactly how I would configure it, being that it's a
>touring
><airplane. Still, I think it's beautiful!
>
>It has been such a long development process that even those who have been
>closely following it have probably lost site of how much a true prototype
>this airplane actually is. The airfoil on the wing that is currently
>installed has never flown other than in a computer. Flight testing may
>demonstrate performance that will cause us to try a different wing. This
>would make any effort spent on advanced development of a wing tip for the
>current wing, totally wasted. The airplane is fully wired for lighting
>so that we can add it easily later. The kit version will have wing tips
>with the molded in recesses like the RV-7 and RV-9 tips have.
>
><When did they say the
><tail kit could be ordered ?
>
>A projected available date has not been made... the prototype has not
>been flown yet.
>Issues discovered during testing could have effect on the availability or
>it could allow us to take orders at Oshkosh. We will have to see.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Scott McDaniels
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Trust me you do not want to know what a Kabong is, best just let is lay
and don't poke at it.
all in fun
do not archive
Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek code :)???
Just curious...Evan
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "chris m" <vhmum@bigpond.com>
All great points , also what about some of us younger builders that have
already built an RV and would like the new baby and dog to come along.
There are several builders I know of that are waiting to see test reports.
One thing is though we are all disappointed that they have an antique engine
in such a nice aircraft. A major problem here is the powers to be WILL be
stopping making avgas in the future. My friends here have been discussing
the new certified Diesel "Avtur" engine from SMA to put in.
Cost might be a problem but we have also been talking about a syndicate.
We are just tossing around ideas here.....Isn't it wonderful to have a
choice!!
Chris and Susie
VH-MUM Australia
do not archive
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
There was a children's TV cartoon that had a character called "EL Kabong"
who would wear a cape and a mask and would swing into some action scene on a
rope or a vine only to crash into something while hollering that he was "El
Kabong" - are we reliving our childhood?
John
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Steven Eberhart <newtech@newtech.com>
Hi Dana, Sam and the gang,
Like most RV builders, I have been following the RV-10 project and offer
one additional market segment that I think will turn out to be rather
significant. That is two to six existing RV builders forming a flying
club and building an RV-10 for use by the club members. They still keep
their RV-4/6/7/8 for the majority of their flying and for the times they
want a four place plane they have access to the club plane that they
each put $25,000 into. Six experienced builders should be able to put a
pre punched RV-10 together in less than a year. $100,000 invested and
probably a resale value of $200,000 - not too bad. Heck, sell the first
one to pay for the second one. They would still have the second one
done in less than two years.
Would also think that experienced RV builders will soon be in demand. I
can't think of a better way to fund retirement :-)
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A (wings) - Just a whole bunch of aluminum out in the garage that
will eventually have the tail number N14SE and go real fast
Sam Buchanan wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
> All this means that Vans is striking out into a market far, far
> different than the one they have dominated for fifteen years. There is
> no doubt the RV-10 will be a nice kit, but $100,000 dollars will buy
> some decent certificated four place planes. All the points I have raised
> have been thoroughly examined by the management of Vans, and due to the
> maturity of the company, they are willing to have a go to see what
> happens.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Tom, Gunnibear, hangs out at APV, Apple Valley Airport, between Barstow and
San Bernardino, 6 miles due east of So. Calif (former George AFB). There are
lots of "us" at APV. Jumpers to acro types and everything in between. We
have an Airfair on Sunday June 8th with CAF China Doll to parasails.
Gummibear is "Airboss" so you'll be talking to him on arrival. Good times,
hanger talk and and lot of humor. We take our flying/building seriously not
ourselves. Do Not Archive. KABONG (GBA)
Subject: Re: RV-List: Humor - Delete Now--Gummo/Horton
> > Someday, Tom, I'll find out which airport is yours. Hope you are there.
>
>
> K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
> RV6-a N7HK flying!
> PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
OK, OK, one more time. See very short verison below. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
Subject: RV-List: kabong?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
<evmeg@snowcrest.net>
>
> What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek code
:)??? Just curious...Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: John Starn
Subject: Re: KABONG
No relation to Bong. Kabong is a handle shortened from El Kabong of cartoon
fame. He "kabongs" bad guys with a guitar when I was a patrol Sgt on Fontana
PD and broke the stocks of two 12 ga shotguns by using the shotgun more like
a baton. Went to a City Halloween party dress all in western black complete
with guns. Someone asked if I were Quicks Draw McGraw, one of my patrolman
chimed with "Na, he's El Kabong" (Quicks Draw McGraws masked alter ego) and
it stuck. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom
To: jhstarn@earthlink.net
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:15 AM
Subject: KABONG
Hey John!
I'm new here. What's the KABONG mean? Are you a relative of DickBONG or
an Aussie?
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
do not archive
John wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
>
>There was a children's TV cartoon that had a character called "EL Kabong"
>who would wear a cape and a mask and would swing into some action scene on a
>rope or a vine only to crash into something while hollering that he was "El
>Kabong" - are we reliving our childhood?
>
>John
>
That was a CHILDRENS' cartoon???
Charlie
(I miss quality TV.)
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
Steven Eberhart wrote:
> Hi Dana, Sam and the gang,
>
> Like most RV builders, I have been following the RV-10 project and offer
> one additional market segment that I think will turn out to be rather
> significant. That is two to six existing RV builders forming a flying
> club and building an RV-10 for use by the club members. They still keep
> their RV-4/6/7/8 for the majority of their flying and for the times they
> want a four place plane they have access to the club plane.
That is exactly what I was thinking. There are RV builders everywhere. Even
if you have to base the plane at a distant airport, because everyone in the
group doesn't live real close. You can always fly the small RV to pick up the
big RV and then go pick up you passengers.
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Right on Jerry. Last person who took a "poke" at him wound up in jail with a
sore right hand and very short of breath. One 12 ga. stock broken. Let
sleeping kabongs lay. 8*) KABONG (GBA) Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
> Trust me you do not want to know what a Kabong is, best just let is lay
> and don't poke at it.
> all in fun
> do not archive
> Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
<evmeg@snowcrest.net>
> > What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek
code :)??? Just curious...Evan
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> >Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes in,
> >expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
> >
> Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
> the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
> k = P* V / T
>
Finn:
You're applying the wrong high school formula. When a flow of fluid expands,
and therefore decelerates, the pressure rises. Get out your old school science
book and look up Bernoulli, Daniel (it'll be in the index just before Boyle,
Robert, where you were looking earlier.)
Tedd
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pete Elia" <peteandsharon@earthlink.net>
Chris & Susie,
On the engine and fuel front - I have read and learned greatly from John
Deakin's articles on Avweb.
Check out -
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html
and some of his other articles that you can find once there concerning Lean
of Peak operations and some of the work of GAMI, Inc.
http://www.gami.com
It looks like with proper engine monitoring and use of their upgraded
injectors and Prism ignition system, full power and safe operation can be
had to full TBO with an unleaded aviation fuel on these big bore aviation
engines.
Pete
----- Original Message -----
From: chris m <vhmum@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-10, oh no an opinion!!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "chris m" <vhmum@bigpond.com>
>
> All great points , also what about some of us younger builders that have
> already built an RV and would like the new baby and dog to come along.
> There are several builders I know of that are waiting to see test reports.
> One thing is though we are all disappointed that they have an antique
engine
> in such a nice aircraft. A major problem here is the powers to be WILL be
> stopping making avgas in the future. My friends here have been discussing
> the new certified Diesel "Avtur" engine from SMA to put in.
> Cost might be a problem but we have also been talking about a syndicate.
> We are just tossing around ideas here.....Isn't it wonderful to have a
> choice!!
>
> Chris and Susie
> VH-MUM Australia
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10 day VFR only?? Van's reply |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@carlsbad.net>
Boy. It sure is nice to hear from Scott. For newbys. Scott used to be
active on the list, and I think that was the heyday of its usefullness.
Unfortunately he was run off by, what I consider to be unwarranted and
unfounded comments.
Just a lesson to us all to be extra careful what we say in a public forum.
Do not archive
> >Hey Brian,
> > How are you and your family doing.
> >I am not subscribed on the RV list but I still cruise the archives a
> >couple times a month or so to see what the hot topics are. I saw the
> >discussion on the RV-10 and since I have a minute I thought I would
> >answer some of the questions that have come up. Please feel free to post
> >them for me since I can not.
> >
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Gee does that mean that when the Mississippi River widens out and slows
down, the pressure increases ? ? 8+) Do Not Archive. (GBA) KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea)
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> > >Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes
in,
> > >expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
> > >
> > Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
> > the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
> > k = P* V / T
> >
>
> Finn:
>
> You're applying the wrong high school formula. When a flow of fluid
expands,
> and therefore decelerates, the pressure rises. Get out your old school
science
> book and look up Bernoulli, Daniel (it'll be in the index just before
Boyle,
> Robert, where you were looking earlier.)
>
> Tedd
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
I always assumed it was the sound the tires made during a carrier-type
arrival. I think mine have made it a few times8')
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: kabong?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
>
> Right on Jerry. Last person who took a "poke" at him wound up in jail with
a
> sore right hand and very short of breath. One 12 ga. stock broken. Let
> sleeping kabongs lay. 8*) KABONG (GBA) Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Springer" <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Trust me you do not want to know what a Kabong is, best just let is lay
> > and don't poke at it.
> > all in fun
> > do not archive
> > Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
> <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
> > > What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek
> code :)??? Just curious...Evan
>
>
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Real Long-New Braunfels |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@carlsbad.net>
Listers:
Got back from the SWRFI at New Braunfels an hour or so ago. It turned out
real nice.
I arrived Saturday morning around 9:30 AM which seemed to be near the peak
arrival time. I know it impressed the Austin approach controllers. When
they were letting people change frequency they were saying things like "I
swear there are 15 people on final now. Be careful!" While I was flying
the arrival procedure the tower kind of threw in the towel. He said
something like, "there are too many of you. Sort it out." From this point
there was a much calmer radio frequency. The tower just stepped in where
they though they could help. Things like "don't slow down on the runway.
Keep the speed up." No landing clearances or anything like that. When I
was on final, there were about 10 or 12 of us S turning, trying to keep
spacing. Seemed to work pretty well but it did put me in mind of how easy
it would be to have a bad accident where you are in a pressure situation, at
minimum speed and S turning near the ground with your attention on the plane
in front of you.
I was parked between an original design, reminiscent of a 30's racer, and a
rotary powered RV-6A. My friend Judy Stocks was just one down. Remarkable,
since we did not coordinate and came from far different places, just like
Brian Denk at Waco and Las Cruces. The parking areas were adequate, but
rough. You did not want to see a nosedragger RV taxi by. There were some
remarkable nose gear gyrations. Some of the canard type guys could not
really handle it.
Every fly-in is an RV fly-in now. Face it. We are as common as dirt. I
have no idea how many there were. One guy was inventorying but had not
finished when I talked to him. He had done about 50 at that time. There
was one of those fancy-smancy ones, an RV-6A, out of Florida. You know;
with the polished firewall, carbon fiber plenum, color coordinated engine
accessories and full panel. It was real nice, but as I told him, my
airplane is over 100 pounds lighter. You have to cling to something for
your own self respect. I also critisized him, to his face, for being
obsessive compulsive. There were a lot of RV formation fly-bys, with 16
RV's and some Bonanzas. Did not even dent the number of RV's on the field.
I saw Larry Vetterman's Rocket, from South Dakota, but missed him. There
were many nice Rockets. There was also Bruce Bohannan's hopped up RV-4. I
got I kick out of talking to him. It now has a huge scoop on the top of the
cowl and a huge intercooler behind that. This is for cooling and also for
windshield defrosting, as the air exit is just ahead of the windshield. He
mentioned that this heavy RV-4 flies a lot nicer at 40,000 feet than down
low, where the ailerons are a little heavy. He indicated that the engine
power produced is predicated on cooling. For instance he tries to keep the
cylinder heads below 500 degrees F. He also has to do a lot of balancing to
prevent turbocharger blade stall. When I asked him what the level flight
indicated airspeed is at 40,000 he told me, and said that calculated out to
about 333 mph. Tracy Saylor and Dave Anders have some fast RV's, but I
guess Bruce's is about as fast as they get. The 50,000 foot flight waits on
a pressure suit. Bruce said that they were having trouble getting one from
the government. If anyone knows someone or has something, contact Bruce.
We need this RV at 50,000 feet. I asked about wing extensions for the
higher altitude, and he said they had them, but he did not think they would
be necessary.
What a remarkable airplane. Bruce said he thanks Van every time he sees
him, but Van says, well, it is just a standard airfoil.
The turn-out was huge. I don't know the numbers, but the marshall who
escorted me out, said there were more airplanes here than at Sun and Fun.
The number of planes he mentioned didn't seem possible to me, but if he is
right, I guess that would make this the new second largest fly-in.
There were certainly way too many very interesting airplanes to near look at
in the one day I spent. A Dyke Delta, the Polen Special and many one of a
kinds were there. There were warbirds, and turboprop 4 seaters, including a
certified turboprop, pressurized version of the Myers, that they hope to put
in production. Jim Bede was there with some BD-17's. Jim Bede! If you
need any better proof of the good manners of flying people, I don't know
what it would be. Jim is up there being interviewed as some kind of
aeronautical hero while all the people he owes money to, including me, don't
even try to ascend the podium to lynch him. Van's had an RV-7A.
I sat down in the cafe for lunch without much delay or trouble. There was
also a food court with buffet and another area with sandwich type places.
The weather was warm, dry and pleasant. Just to the point where you needed
to be sure and have a drink fairly often.
The organizers did many things right. The airport was never closed, which
is a big deal to me. I hate to have to wait till too late to leave, because
someone is having a good time in an aerobatic plane. Gas was just $2.12.
There were plenty of volunteers to guide you every step of the way while
taxiing. There were shade awnings spaced ever so often, which turned out to
be just great to sit down in the shade and rest once in a while. There was
transportation along the flight line, for those who like that sort of thing.
A very enjoyable day, and the trip over and back showed once again what a
remarkable plane an RV is. A friend of mine flew over from the same airport
I did, in New Mexico. He flew a cherokee 180 and burned over 30 gallons
while I burned 14.7 with the same engine, in much less time. With the
ability to go high or low, you can outsmart the winds to a large extent.
Going over I went at 11,500 at around 190 knots most of the time, burning
about 7 gph. Coming back, I went lower, with ground speeds starting at
about 150 knots and increasing to 165 knots near home at a burn of about 8
gph. What Fun!
Do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Hey Ron:
Is that Hayward airport as in Hayward, Wisconsin??
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A
fuselage (waiting for finish kit)
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Patterson" <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Patterson <scc_ron@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Guy's!
>
> I just moved my RV-4 from the Garage to the Hayward Airport to complete
the engine and avionics and get this baby in the air. Anyone with a lead on
an IO-320 or 360 / and any 2-1/4 inch instruments would be appreciated.
> Ron Patterson N8ZD (reserved)
>
>
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Okay, okay. If we're going to discuss cartoons let's at least be accurate.
It was Quick-Draw McGraw, his side-kick, Baba-louie, called him Quicks Draw in
whatever accent that was supposed to be. I grew up glued to these cartoons.
Which is why I'm so warped I supposed.
Exit... stage left!
PS. All of the above was typed in a very humorous tone, I hope you read it that
way.
Oh and... Do not archive. See? Smarter than the average bear!
John Starn <jhstarn@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn"
OK, OK, one more time. See very short verison below. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
Subject: RV-List: kabong?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
>
> What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek code
:)??? Just curious...Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: John Starn
Subject: Re: KABONG
No relation to Bong. Kabong is a handle shortened from El Kabong of cartoon
fame. He "kabongs" bad guys with a guitar when I was a patrol Sgt on Fontana
PD and broke the stocks of two 12 ga shotguns by using the shotgun more like
a baton. Went to a City Halloween party dress all in western black complete
with guns. Someone asked if I were Quicks Draw McGraw, one of my patrolman
chimed with "Na, he's El Kabong" (Quicks Draw McGraws masked alter ego) and
it stuck. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom
Subject: KABONG
Hey John!
I'm new here. What's the KABONG mean? Are you a relative of DickBONG or
an Aussie?
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
Luke 6:28, NAS
---------------------------------
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott@shaw.ca>
don't exit so fast; I still want to know what Neidemeier's first name and
initial was.
I'm going with James P. or C., can't quite recalll which it was.
Scott in Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Vanartsdalen" <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: kabong?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
>
> Okay, okay. If we're going to discuss cartoons let's at least be
accurate.
> It was Quick-Draw McGraw, his side-kick, Baba-louie, called him Quicks
Draw in whatever accent that was supposed to be. I grew up glued to these
cartoons. Which is why I'm so warped I supposed.
>
> Exit... stage left!
>
> PS. All of the above was typed in a very humorous tone, I hope you read it
that way.
>
> Oh and... Do not archive. See? Smarter than the average bear!
>
> John Starn <jhstarn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn"
>
> OK, OK, one more time. See very short verison below. KABONG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: kabong?
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
>
> >
> > What or who is Kabong???? Or is this just some sort of computer geek
code
> :)??? Just curious...Evan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Starn
> To: Tom
> Subject: Re: KABONG
>
>
> No relation to Bong. Kabong is a handle shortened from El Kabong of
cartoon
> fame. He "kabongs" bad guys with a guitar when I was a patrol Sgt on
Fontana
> PD and broke the stocks of two 12 ga shotguns by using the shotgun more
like
> a baton. Went to a City Halloween party dress all in western black
complete
> with guns. Someone asked if I were Quicks Draw McGraw, one of my patrolman
> chimed with "Na, he's El Kabong" (Quicks Draw McGraws masked alter ego)
and
> it stuck. KABONG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom
> To: jhstarn@earthlink.net
> Subject: KABONG
>
>
> Hey John!
>
> I'm new here. What's the KABONG mean? Are you a relative of DickBONG or
> an Aussie?
>
>
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen
> RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
>
> bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
> Luke 6:28, NAS
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
If Van can get reasonably close to the performance of the RV-9 series with the
RV-10, it will sell well. I think it will be wildly popular on the resale market.
Just an opinion.
Dana Overall <bo124rs@hotmail.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall"
>From: "lucky macy"
>Hope it doesn't hurt the company and make them have to raise the prices on
>the other kits more than usual.
I'll offer an opinion (oh, geez another one of those smelly things). Being
an owner of a certified four place airplane, I really believe the cruiser
crowd is laying in wait for this 4 seater to come out. Up to this point the
only options available were glass or fabric with either mega bucks involved
or from a company that did not offer anything "go fast". Van's is a trusted
company with a vast history to follow. Sure, there are always going to be
people buying new A36s but in my case, I'm just thinking out loud here, I
could probably pull the 225HP engine and C/S prop out of my older Bonanza
(plus I have another 225HP core and jugs, 0 time yellow tagged crank, cam,
case, rods, acc. case etc. sitting in the hangar), pull the radios, avionics
and such and either part out or selll the airframe to a scrap house and come
out way ahead of the game. I would not be at the mercy of my wishy washy
IA/AP (this is not an indictment against any IA/AP on this list, just my
local one) on a yearly basis. In this case, I'd have a "go fast" and I'd
have a cruiser............best of both worlds.
I'm thinking Van's will not be able to make them fast enough.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
RV-7 slider/fuselage
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
Luke 6:28, NAS
---------------------------------
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-10, oh no an opinion!! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Valid points from Sam and it appears Van's knows the RV-10 will be have to
sell in a different market.
How different? Well, I have seen lots of mention of shiny new C/S O-360s and
IFR capable GPSs going into RV-6s, 7s, and 8s, which means the cost of Van's
kits is down around 25% of the finished cost of say $60-70k at minimum.
That's fine and everyone is certainly welcome to build at this level if that
the flavour they choose but the point is a "basic" RV-10 will probably not
be much different in cost than some of the more "delux" RV6/7/8s.
A recent Flying magazine had a feature on used Cessna 182s - the writer
seemed to feel a 25 year old Skylane with a half life engine and average
avionics was an excellent buy at $90-$100 k. Stir in $50k worth of new
avionics and you would have a pretty good airplane was the spin.
I would suggest the cost comparision to make is thus not a $75k RV-10 versus
a $40k RV-6 but against a $100k used Skylane. If it can be shown that an
RV-10 will provide similar utility as a Skylane then the choice becomes
attractive one even figuring the 3-5 years construction time in. (New
Skylanes are available at $250,000 for those so interested, of course.)
Ongoing costs of ownership should also favour an RV-10.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
(not shopping for Skylanes at this time)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-10, oh no an opinion!!
> Guess it's time for a contrary opinion. ;-)
>
> As long as we are speculating about something that none of us can
> actually foresee, I would like to offer the opinion that the RV-10 will
> be sold in comparatively small quantities. Two S-N-Fs ago I spoke at
> length with Tom Green about the four-place plane they were considering.
> The thrust of the conversation was about the market niche that may or
> may not exist for the RV-10. My contention was that it would be sold
> primarily to individuals that do not represent the current builders of
> the two-place designs. The current RVs are wildly popular because they
> hit a financial "sweet spot" that many, many builders can accommodate.
> While there are builders of current models that have the financial
> resources to spend whatever money they wish on a project, I suggest that
> most RVs have been built by folks that are at their financial limit (or
> beyond!) for a hobby project. The range of $40K-$60K for a project is
> attainable for a large number of builders who can not spend $100K+ for a
> more sophisticated design.
>
> But.........$40K-$60K will not come close to building an RV-10. And this
> was the point of my discussion with Tom. This means the RV-10 will fall
> into a vastly different market niche than the current models. Tom
> readily agreed with my assessment and stated that there was concern
> within management that they might be designing a plane that might be
> difficult to sell in quantities that would be profitable. But, he said
> that the company is now financially secure enough that they can "roll
> the dice" and see what the market can bear. If the RV-10 is as
> successful as some of the listers have predicted, then the competition
> will have another 800 lb gorilla to deal with! If not, then it was Tom's
> opinion that Vans could carry the expense of the four-place experiment
> without unduly impacting the bottom line.
>
> The reasons I predict the RV-10 will be built in relatively small
> quantities are thus:
>
> 1) The completed cost will be far above what most current RV builders
> are experiencing, because....
>
> 2) Most RV-10 builders will not be able to justify such a plane with
> VFR-only capabilities. This means that serious panels are going to be
> installed, which means that.....
>
> 3) The engine/prop expenses will be considerably higher since who will
> want to put a half-worn-out motor in a nice four-place plane with a nice
> panel, which means.....
>
> 4) Insurance cost will be considerably higher since the hull value will
> escalate, and four souls are now at risk.
>
> 5) The biggest chunk of potential buyers will be those who have
> absolutely no interest in building a plane. Will they overcome their
> aversion to building in sufficient quantities to abandon their Mooneys,
> Cherokees, and Cessnas, and create a substantial fleet of RV-10s?
>
> All this means that Vans is striking out into a market far, far
> different than the one they have dominated for fifteen years. There is
> no doubt the RV-10 will be a nice kit, but $100,000 dollars will buy
> some decent certificated four place planes. All the points I have raised
> have been thoroughly examined by the management of Vans, and due to the
> maturity of the company, they are willing to have a go to see what
> happens.
>
> But ask the guys at Vans if they predict a runaway best seller, and I
> suspect you will receive a subdued answer at this point in time. I wish
> the very best for the RV-10 endeavor and expect it to be well received
> by the builders who decide this project fits their needs and budgets.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea); pressure recovery |
& flyin notice
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
John Starn wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
>
>Gee does that mean that when the Mississippi River widens out and slows
>down, the pressure increases ? ? 8+) Do Not Archive. (GBA) KABONG
>
Well John, the Mississippi is kinda special. It widens out but it don't
slow down. And this time of year, the pressure is definately increasing.
Even the air is heavier when you get this far south.
BTW, if any of you guys think you can handle Mississippi in the
summertime, we are having a little EAA chapter flyin here July 12.
Burgers for lunch, hangar space & a few beds if anyone needs to overnite.
Charlie
Slobovia Outernational Airport (MS71)
Pocahontas MS (just north of Jackson & you can feel the river from 40
miles away)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea)
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes
>>>>
>>>>
>in,
>
>
>>>>expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
>>>the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
>>>k = P* V / T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Finn:
>>
>>You're applying the wrong high school formula. When a flow of fluid
>>
>>
>expands,
>
>
>>and therefore decelerates, the pressure rises. Get out your old school
>>
>>
>science
>
>
>>book and look up Bernoulli, Daniel (it'll be in the index just before
>>
>>
>Boyle,
>
>
>>Robert, where you were looking earlier.)
>>
>>Tedd
>>
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finnlassen@netzero.net>
Ok, ok. So so I can't apply that formula because we're not talking about
a finite count of gas molecules because we have continuous flow of them.
I'll agree to a presurre rise when a flow is slowed down. However, if
it's slowed down into an expanding area I don't believe the pressure
rises as much as it would if it was slowed down into a non-expanded area.
In a jet engine it is the compressor that increases the pressure?
Finn
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>
>
>>>Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes in,
>>>expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
>>the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
>>k = P* V / T
>>
>>
>>
>
>Finn:
>
>You're applying the wrong high school formula. When a flow of fluid expands,
>and therefore decelerates, the pressure rises. Get out your old school science
>book and look up Bernoulli, Daniel (it'll be in the index just before Boyle,
>Robert, where you were looking earlier.)
>
>Tedd
>
>
>
>
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Tell me about it Charlie. We had a channel here on DirecTV called Boomerang.
Had all the cartoons from the 60's and early 70's that I grew up with. Talk about
a couch potato! Catch that channel if you can. It's great.
Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
do not archive
John wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "John"
>
>There was a children's TV cartoon that had a character called "EL Kabong"
>who would wear a cape and a mask and would swing into some action scene on a
>rope or a vine only to crash into something while hollering that he was "El
>Kabong" - are we reliving our childhood?
>
>John
>
That was a CHILDRENS' cartoon???
Charlie
(I miss quality TV.)
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
Luke 6:28, NAS
---------------------------------
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New RV-6A builder |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Taylor" <rv7@cox.net>
I had originally started to build an RV-7 but found I could finish a -6 much
cheaper. I found an RV-6A project with two empennages (90% complete), wing (80%
complete), and fuselage (not started) this weekend. I blame it all on Jeff
Crab and Sam Buchanan (TVRVBG) for giving me rides in their sixes :) Hopefully
in the next 2-3 years I can start making their weekly breakfast in my RV :)
I've started the inventory to find out where to get started. It appears I need
to finish the control surfaces for the empennage and finish the tanks and skins
for the wings. I'll try to get some pictures tomorrow.
Ironically I picked up the parts in a 6x12 UHaul trailer. The numbers RV 2295
G were on the trailer. Could this be some type of omen? :)
I'm chomping at the bit to get going. I know it's a long road ahead but I think
I'm up to the challenge. I just hope I haven't gotten too spoiled to the predrilled
-7 parts.
-David Taylor (N207DT reserved)
empennage/wings
Warner Robins, GA
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing cooling (another wacky idea); pressure recovery & flyin |
notice
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Are you saying that the rate of flow at the edges is exactly the same as in
the center of the river and the fact that there is more volume at this time
of year is not the cause of the increase pressure in the center of said
wider river. Be advised I know where you fish for catfish and why. KABONG
(GBA)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie & Tupper England" <cengland@netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea); pressure recovery &
flyin notice
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
<cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> John Starn wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Gee does that mean that when the Mississippi River widens out and slows
> >down, the pressure increases ? ? 8+) Do Not Archive. (GBA) KABONG
> >
> Well John, the Mississippi is kinda special. It widens out but it don't
> slow down. And this time of year, the pressure is definately increasing.
> Even the air is heavier when you get this far south.
>
> BTW, if any of you guys think you can handle Mississippi in the
> summertime, we are having a little EAA chapter flyin here July 12.
> Burgers for lunch, hangar space & a few beds if anyone needs to
overnite.
>
> Charlie
> Slobovia Outernational Airport (MS71)
> Pocahontas MS (just north of Jackson & you can feel the river from 40
> miles away)
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Wing cooling (another wacky idea)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Essentially, it's the same principle as a jet engine. The air comes
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >in,
> >
> >
> >>>>expands to a higher pressure in the duct,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Say what? First time I've heard air expanding to a higher pressure. Did
> >>>the laws of gasses change when I wasn't looking ? :)
> >>>k = P* V / T
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Finn:
> >>
> >>You're applying the wrong high school formula. When a flow of fluid
> >>
> >>
> >expands,
> >
> >
> >>and therefore decelerates, the pressure rises. Get out your old school
> >>
> >>
> >science
> >
> >
> >>book and look up Bernoulli, Daniel (it'll be in the index just before
> >>
> >>
> >Boyle,
> >
> >
> >>Robert, where you were looking earlier.)
> >>
> >>Tedd
> >>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|